Support NeoGAF

[tearsofash]

Had to buy the games, which came with a few cards. Then you had to hunt down the cards for extra things like levels, characters, special moves, etc. Effectively DLC on an RFID chip. This was 2006.

Some friends of mine actually hacked this thing and got some wireframe demos and a Hello World on it. I don't think we ever got access to the USB though.

 

[Dark Octave]

30+ characters, $6-7 each, all with subtle/minor differences in play style.. it just rubs me the wrong way. the saving grace is that figures generally are that expensive even without a chip built in. it's just a shame you can't move their arms or legs. It's smart, but it just feels wrong to me. Maybe it's just because I expect them to be exploitative. If people are fine paying $300+ for a $50 game it's their prerogative, but damn if it isn't the smartest way to sell what amounts to dlc.

My only gripe is like you said, you can't move their arms and legs and they are stuck to the stands (I assume) so you can't truly pose and "play" with the toys, you know what I mean?

And I agree with you about the DLC comment you made. There are worse offenders though, like annual Madden releases that cost a full $60 which amounts to nothing but DLC (maybe a season pass) worth of content each year.

 

[etiolate]

I honestly read your reasoning in the OP through about three times and I just fail to see how this is exploitation. Another poster made the valid case that worse, the game's guilty of being a poor value but even that's debatable. I mean whose being exploited here? The Syro IP? Action figures? I don't think it's accurate to say children are being exploited. They're being marketed to. That's not exploitation. At best, you can say the parent's are being exploited but then you would have to say "Child(ren) _____ Industry" is guilty of it as well because kids don't are the target consumers and they have no money but that of their parents hence the kids are the exploiters... not the game.

Consumers are being exploited, and yes it is through kids and their parents. It is not simply just a toy that requires the child begging their parent for it though. You're right, that's nothing new. The difference here is that the content already exists in the game. Like I said, it is on-disc DLC. It already exists on the product the parent has purchased. The toys unlock the content. The toys themselves are the size of a happy meal toy and cost between $15 to $20 per individual toy. It is my feeling that many parents have no idea that they are paying for the same thing twice. Since this is a kid's game, that relevant info would only be acquired by the kid and the kid probably won't bother to find out since it is not his/her money being spent. Activision bypasses the sort of thing that has gotten bad press before by targeting an audience that doesn't ask those questions. It's unethical to sell the same product twice through restrictions, but doubly troublesome to sneak it by through kids.

 

[okenny]

30+ characters, $6-7 each, all with subtle/minor differences in play style.. it just rubs me the wrong way. the saving grace is that figures generally are that expensive even without a chip built in. it's just a shame you can't move their arms or legs. It's smart, but it just feels wrong to me. Maybe it's just because I expect them to be exploitative. If people are fine paying $300+ for a $50 game it's their prerogative, but damn if it isn't the smartest way to sell what amounts to dlc.

Do you think the reason you may feel the way you do is because you are too involved in the "insider baseball" aspect of gaming? You are a poster on GAF so you probably know more about the industry (which may amount to not much given how rampant rumors are around here) then your average Skylander player. You know about Activision and Bobby, you know how Studios are shuttered and how sometimes games are shipped without certain parts just so it can be sold to you later. You understand the need for publishers to make revenue streams, etc... you are cynical about those who would ask for money for a product in this industry. What all that means is far to deep for this discussion but needless to say, if I'm right, your feelings are largely based on the baggage of the industry and not really the product.

- - - -

Part of me believes that we need to start measuring value by carbon footprints correlated to the probability of contracting some pollution related disease and the cost of health-care for treatment of said disease. Maybe then we can make a better "value" proposition. Everything else feels like people just spending money on whatever they think the entertainment is worth.

 

[JimtotheHum]

Wow. This is actually a lot cooler than I thought it was.

It's the first toy in a long time that I purchased for my nephew where I was probably just as excited about it as he was.

 

[Evlar]

My only gripe is like you said, you can't move their arms and legs and they are stuck to the stands (I assume) so you can't truly pose and "play" with the toys, you know what I mean?

And I agree with you about the DLC comment you made. There are worse offenders though, like annual Madden releases that cost a full $60 which amounts to nothing but DLC (maybe a season pass) worth of content each year.

I think the comparison everyone is grasping for is League of Legends; dozens of characters for sale, each with distinct abilities.

 

[ElNino]

The toys themselves are the size of a happy meal toy and cost between $15 to $20 per individual toy.

The figures are $8 for one, $20 for a three pack and $20 for an adventure pack which includes one figure, a level and two items.

 

[etiolate]

The figures are $8 for one, $20 for a three pack and $20 for an adventure pack which includes one figure, a level and two items.

But they can package rares within three packs and single figures are selling for $15-20 online by themselves. If you are lucky then you may find what you are looking for at $8.

Of course, all this stuff is already on the disc you previously paid for.

 

[blame space]

"industry" vs. "generation".. would the discussion be different?

 

[DrForester]

But they can package rares within three packs and single figures are selling for $15-20 online by themselves. If you are lucky then you may find what you are looking for at $8.

Of course, all this stuff is already on the disc you previously paid for.

Repaints on toys to draw collectors value is hardly something new, and the silver/gold figures don't look any different in game, it's just the color of the toy.

 

[okenny]

Consumers are being exploited, and yes it is through kids and their parents. It is not simply just a toy that requires the child begging their parent for it though. You're right, that's nothing new. The difference here is that the content already exists in the game. Like I said, it is on-disc DLC. It already exists on the product the parent has purchased. The toys unlock the content. The toys themselves are the size of a happy meal toy and cost between $15 to $20 per individual toy. It is my feeling that many parents have no idea that they are paying for the same thing twice. Since this is a kid's game, that relevant info would only be acquired by the kid and the kid probably won't bother to find out since it is not his/her money being spent. Activision bypasses the sort of thing that has gotten bad press before by targeting an audience that doesn't ask those questions. It's unethical to sell the same product twice through restrictions, but doubly troublesome to sneak it by through kids.

Are they selling the same product twice though? You made up your mind that if it's on the disc then it's accessible but that isn't the business model here. I would be unethical if the company said they were giving the consumer all the possible content at no extra charge and then charged them to unlock all the possible content but that's not what they did right? They are selling access to locked content. This is nothing new. It's a practice that goes as far back as the old IBM mainframes where a RAM upgrade involved an IBM tech showing up on-site to flip the switch that unlocked the additional built-in RAM. Our thinking isn't in line with the business model of the product we purchase. The thing is that parents aren't thinking that which is a point you point out clearly but if your intentions are to tell parents they own everything on disk without paying for the keys to unlock extra content then isn't that a mis-representation of the truth?

As I said before, I don't believe this is exploitative. I think what is missing is a viable competitor to Skylanders which makes it impossible to state what is a fair value for the product they sell. All that is here is market forces. It's success is its greatest defense.

 

[ElNino]

But they can package rares within three packs and single figures are selling for $15-20 online by themselves. If you are lucky then you may find what you are looking for at $8.

Of course, all this stuff is already on the disc you previously paid for.

I've never seen a "rare" character in store (not counting the TRU Legendary pack) and every character I have bought I got in store for MSRP.

But then, you think they should just be giving these figures away for free seeing as you have a already paid for them by buying the game. You can't really be that obtuse can you?

 

[Madrical]

If they released a full blown RPG on PC/PS3/360 for Pokemon with these things, I'd buy the shit out of them. Well, the first 151.

 

[nincompoop]

Skylanders is basically on-disc DLC done through toys which allows the company to control supply and demand in a way that DLC cannot.

But kids like playing with toys, so they serve a purpose beyond unlocking extra content on the disc. With regular on-disc DLC you get nothing.

 

[clemenx]

You can call it vile all you want but as it is with everything that's non esential, it's the costumers' "fault" that this model was successful

 

[etiolate]

Repaints on toys to draw collectors value is hardly something new, and the silver/gold figures don't look any different in game, it's just the color of the toy.

I've never seen a "rare" character in store (not counting the TRU Legendary pack) and every character I have bought I got in store for MSRP.

But then, you think they should just be giving these figures away for free seeing as you have a already paid for them by buying the game. You can't really be that obtuse can you?

I'm not saying toy repaints are new or they should get the toys free.

I am saying these only exist as toys to fuck the consumer through on-disc DLC practices hidden behind children.

 

[blame space]

I've never seen a "rare" character in store

there's a reason for this :/

 

[okenny]

I'm not saying toy repaints are new or they should get the toys free.

I am saying these only exist as toys to fuck be enjoyed by the consumer through on-disc DLC practices hidden behind as the most efficient delivery mechanism to children.

Just another way to look at it without the loaded words.

 

[Stinkles]

Kids think it's fun. Moms think its a life-saver. Businessmen think it's genius. Educators think it's better than shooting.

Only aliens and hipsters hate it.

 

[etiolate]

Just another way to look at it without the loaded words.

your post is kind of disturbing

 

[graywolf323]

maybe for the video game industry but pails in comparison to other things

anyone remember pogs and then those spinning battle discs too

man the 90's

 

[blame space]

your post is kind of disturbing

shit is next-level disturbing

 

[ElNino]

your post is kind of disturbing

Not as disturbing as the OP.

 

[etiolate]

Not in a world with in-app purchases for games aimed at kids, and designed to milk as much money as possible for little effort. This IS exploitation, but it's along the lines of some toy from the 80s or 90s, a fun product with a very novel, but costly, gimmick. It's more of a shame that you're buying detailed statues than figurines you can actually play with, but I guess most kids won't care to play with little statues enough to accidentally break the electronics inside.

Okay, watched this. It's up their with Skylanders, probably worse due to the ability for the kids to just charge away on the account. I love the uncomfortable response by the Tapfish guy when asked about talking to a parent. I get the feeling you might get the same response from Activision if asked about telling a parent the character they paid for is already in the game.

 

[okenny]

your post is kind of disturbing

How so? Does it make me sound a little anti-consumer or perhaps like I've been brainwashed by false ideals of capitalism? I hope I don't sound like I'm trying to hard to contribute. It may be better if I just said my piece and moved on instead of lingering and remaining stubborn to my initial belief. I've also been found to be a bit selfish and unable to see others perspective on matters evidenced by not changing my opinion after well-stated arguments are presented to me. I've come to believe I like empathy at times because I don't understand the feelings of some people I enter into debate with. I'm too quick to dismiss things as simply opinions when I can't find a reason to see things from another's perspective.

I'm not trying to frustrate you or even disturb you as I have shown that I can make my share of disturbing posts outside this thread. I simply find your stance on this matter intriguing and want to understand if there's anything more than your concept of ownership and perception of value (both of which I'm at odds with) that makes you state that this is exploitation. I'm also interested in the concept of exploitation as a whole. The word itself isn't bad but the fact that you coupled it with vile makes me want to explore your ideas of it more.

shit is next-level disturbing

I'd appreciate your feedback as well

 

[blackflag]

I like the idea. My 4 year old loves it. I like playing it with him. It'd be different if the game sucked but it is very decent for what it is.

 

[etiolate]

How so? Does it make me sound a little anti-consumer or perhaps like I've been brainwashed by false ideals of capitalism? I hope I don't sound like I'm trying to hard to contribute. It may be better if I just said my piece and moved on instead of lingering and remaining stubborn to my initial belief. I've also been found to be a bit selfish and unable to see others perspective on matters evidenced by not changing my opinion after well-stated arguments are presented to me. I've come to believe I like empathy at times because I don't understand the feelings of some people I enter into debate with. I'm too quick to dismiss things as simply opinions when I can't find a reason to see things from another's perspective.

I'm not trying to frustrate you or even disturb you as I have shown that I can make my share of disturbing posts outside this thread. I simply find your stance on this matter intriguing and want to understand if there's anything more than your concept of ownership and perception of value (both of which I'm at odds with) that makes you state that this is exploitation. I'm also interested in the concept of exploitation as a whole. The word itself isn't bad but the fact that you coupled it with vile makes me want to explore your ideas of it more.



I'd appreciate your feedback as well

You have no problem with making people pay again for content already on a disc they bought?

As for what was disturbing is that you took my post and reworded it in a way that censors its meaning and intent. It's not another way of saying the same thing. It's spin meant to take something negative and make it pleasing for the sole reason of protecting a financial entity. It serves no public good, it may even be bad for the good of the public. The history of this sort of practice is certainly not good. You also did this rather quickly, which makes it seem like something you are used to doing.

You sounded like a public notification from a dystopian world.

 

[Satchel]

Christ OP, calm down.

This stuff has been happening since I was a kid, just not in this awesome fucking form.

I WISH we had stuff as cool as Skylanders when I was a kid. Imagine if I could get my movie maniacs models, place them on a platform, and the characters appear in a gamer I just bought.

That would be fucking awesome.

The actual Skylanders game is pretty shitty, but the concept is amazing, and sells like crazy.

 

[CreateNowSleepLater]

I like it. I have a 5 and 7 yr old. Those are tough ages for gaming. They either have to play some game where they are flailing their arms about or something probably more violent. I hate the Lego games and the Mario games for the most part are too hard for them. Half my Son's friends are playing Call Of Duty already so this is a nice thing that he loves it and all his friends have it as well.

 

[DrForester]

I am saying these only exist as toys to fuck the consumer through on-disc DLC practices hidden behind children.

And as I said before (and also take from a few other posts), this is different from pre-order bonuses, weapon and character downloads how? Other than that Skylanders figures are tangible items and could be resold later.

 

[Drkirby]

I personally think its really cool. Can you Reset the level of the figures?

 

[Christine]

C'mon people. It's just a kid-portable software protection dongle with persistent memory. The cross-platform support is a product attribute that's genuinely hospitable to this consumer market in a very substantial way.

I'm honestly quite incredibly impressed by this. Can the value proposition improve? Yes, and I'm sure that it will. Other toy manufacturers are bound to follow suit with competing propositions, and Skylanders will probably be forced to manufacture more costly toys and accept a lower margin.

The computer and display-side support that enables the virtual content associated with the toys only gets more and more ubiquitous, and the silicon cost element of the toy manufacture is already marginal. I think that this is likely to become a major category within action figures.

Wouldn't it be nice to see something like this employed for, say, the G.I. Joe or Barbie properties? The product dynamics seem to require more competent game design than is typically afforded to those brands.

 

[DrForester]

I personally think its really cool. Can you Reset the level of the figures?

yup.

 

[Christine]

yup.

So, basically it's better than The Mercenaries 3D?

 

[etiolate]

If you like what Skylanders is doing then how would you feel about someone hacking the system and providing people with a way of accessing all the characters? You get all the fun of the game and all the content on the disc.

 

[blame space]

C'mon people. It's just a kid-portable software protection dongle with persistent memory. The cross-platform support is a product attribute that's genuinely hospitable to this consumer market in a very substantial way.

I'm honestly quite incredibly impressed by this. Can the value proposition improve? Yes, and I'm sure that it will. Other toy manufacturers are bound to follow suit with competing propositions, and Skylanders will probably be forced to manufacture more costly toys and accept a lower margin.

The computer and display-side support that enables the virtual content associated with the toys only gets more and more ubiquitous, and the silicon cost element of the toy manufacture is already marginal. I think that this is likely to become a major category within action figures.

Wouldn't it be nice to see something like this employed for, say, the G.I. Joe or Barbie properties? The product dynamics seem to require more competent game design than is typically afforded to those brands.

this is SO WEIRD

 

[Christine]

If you like what Skylanders is doing then how would you feel about someone hacking the system and providing people with a way of accessing all the characters?

No problems at all. I don't think it matters though, because that's not what the kids are going to want.

 

[MattKeil]

You have no problem with making people pay again for content already on a disc they bought?

This is utterly nonsensical. The consumer does not own that data, nor do they have the means to access it in any meaningful way, therefore they are not paying again for content they already own. Furthermore, the entire concept of the game is clear and self-evident, and if someone actually holds a viewpoint as strange as yours on the matter, they are free to not buy Skylanders or any of its related products.

They're fantasy figurines, utterly similar to things like the various D&D/Star Wars/Warcraft/etc. miniature games available on the market, except this has a digital component. It's no more a ripoff to charge someone to buy a Skylanders character to play in the game they already own than it is to charge someone for a new D&D miniature to play in the game ruleset they already own a copy of. It's how it works, and the customers, both child and parent, are well aware of how it works and what they're getting into. There is no deception at play here.

Spoiler

Also, if anyone doesn't think this will be implemented into a spinoff of Pokémon inside of two years, you're crazy.

 

[Kyuur]

Pretty much what Matt says. You are paying for the game, not the data on the disc. They can choose how you unlock it with whatever means they want. Don't want to pay? Don't get the extras.

Would you find it just as offensive if they needed to download new data when you purchase each Skylander (regular old DLC)? They could pretty easily implement that. Thing is: that actually is worse for the consumer as it wastes their time when the data could have just been on disk.

 

[etiolate]

This is utterly nonsensical. The consumer does not own that data, nor do they have the means to access it in any meaningful way,

The hacking allows them access. They can do this because the data is already there on the product they bought. That's exactly why I asked this question.

therefore they are not paying again for content they already own. Furthermore, the entire concept of the game is clear and self-evident, and if someone actually holds a viewpoint as strange as yours on the matter, they are free to not buy Skylanders or any of its related products.

The concept is this: We can make this kickass gauntlet/diablo for kids with a ton of characters, but why let them play the whole game for just $60 when we can make them pay three times that without their parents understanding what we're doing?

They're fantasy figurines, utterly similar to things like the various D&D/Star Wars/Warcraft/etc. miniature games available on the market, except this has a digital component. It's no more a ripoff to charge someone to buy a Skylanders character to play in the game they already own than it is to charge someone for a new D&D miniature to play in the game ruleset they already own a copy of. It's how it works, and the customers, both child and parent, are well aware of how it works and what they're getting into. There is no deception at play here.

See, I don't think all the parents are well aware of how it works. I think some young gamer parents may understand and still be pretty set in their consumerism to accept it, but I think there are parents who have no idea that they are paying again for something that exists on the game disc they already paid for.

 

[Tobor]

This sounds pretty awesome. If my nephew was old enough, I'd buy it for him.

Nintendo has to be kicking themselves that they didnt think of this. They had the ereader thing years ago but never took it to this next level. Genius.

Also, I looked up the game on Wikipedia, it's designed by Toys for Bob, of Star Control 2 fame! :O

 

[okenny]

You have no problem with making people pay again for content already on a disc they bought?

As for what was disturbing is that you took my post and reworded it in a way that censors its meaning and intent. It's not another way of saying the same thing. It's spin meant to take something negative and make it pleasing for the sole reason of protecting a financial entity. It serves no public good, it may even be bad for the good of the public. The history of this sort of practice is certainly not good. You also did this rather quickly, which makes it seem like something you are used to doing.

You sounded like a public notification from a dystopian world.

I reworded your post (leaving the original words present while bolding the words I added) simply to show how emotionally charged your premise is. I just would like to see something more concrete to make me believe vile exploitation was happening but it only seems like the bite in your argument is how you "feel" about the whole thing. I'm not really saying you're feeling is without merit, I would just like more than that.

The argument that people are repaying for content is where I find you aren't able to make your case. If the content on the disc constitutes as the content then wouldn't people paying for the content again involve getting the disk again (along with the action figure they've already bought). Another way to look at it, if the content on the disc is the content that people bought then wouldn't it be possible to play it without any additional purchase? The reality of it is that the content on the disk that is locked is what the consumer has purchased. What is not on the disk but is in the figurines is the key the consumer has yet to purchase. You're argument would be make more sense if it was "The key to the content should be free" then we can clearly establish that this was your own agenda and evaluate it as such however you are taking the position that their business model is vile and exploitative because they are charging for content already on disc. Did you see what you did there? You are proposing that we evaluate one premise (the business practice is vile and exploitative) with the assumption that the foundation premise (the key to locked content should be free) is acceptable. Its a lot to ask someone to accept based on emotion alone.

 

[Christine]

See, I don't think all the parents are well aware of how it works. I think some young gamer parents may understand and still be pretty set in their consumerism to accept it, but I think there are parents who have no idea that they are paying again for something that exists on the game disc they already paid for.

That doesn't matter in the slightest. The pragmatic attributes of the product are communicated to the customer clearly and accurately: each toy will allow the child to play as one particular character with a save file unique to that character. It is incredibly presumptuous of you to assume that people not just don't know what they're buying, but that they don't even know what they intend to buy.

The concept is this: We can make this kickass gauntlet/diablo for kids with a ton of characters, but why let them play the whole game for just $60 when we can make them pay three times that without their parents understanding what we're doing?

When we have a children's games market that's full of "kickass" software instead of E-tier cast-offs this point might be relevant.

 

[etiolate]

I reworded your post (leaving the original words present while bolding the words I added) simply to show how emotionally charged your premise is. I just would like to see something more concrete to make me believe vile exploitation was happening but it only seems like the bite in your argument is how you "feel" about the whole thing. I'm not really saying you're feeling is without merit, I would just like more than that.

The argument that people are repaying for content is where I find you aren't able to make your case. If the content on the disc constitutes as the content then wouldn't people paying for the content again involve getting the disk again (along with the action figure they've already bought). Another way to look at it, if the content on the disc is the content that people bought then wouldn't it be possible to play it without any additional purchase? The reality of it is that the content on the disk that is locked is what the consumer has purchased. What is not on the disk but is in the figurines is the key the consumer has yet to purchase. You're argument would be make more sense if it was "The key to the content should be free" then we can clearly establish that this was your own agenda and evaluate it as such however you are taking the position that their business model is vile and exploitative because they are charging for content already on disc. Did you see what you did there? You are proposing that we evaluate one premise (the business practice is vile and exploitative) with the assumption that the foundation premise (the key to locked content should be free) is acceptable. Its a lot to ask someone to accept based on emotion alone.

It is only locked to make people pay more for a game. If it can be accessed through a hack then it is there on the product you paid for. The locked content is meant to be played, unlike some left in code a la Hot Coffee mod. This is not something that will stop here. You will end up paying more for less if this practice continues. The disturbing part is sneaking it by through children.

 

[Christine]

If it can be accessed through a hack then it is there on the product you paid for.

What a man does in his own home with hardware and a plastic disc that he legally purchased is between him and his gods. But this couldn't be further from the truth. To say otherwise is to redefine "product" and "paid" so radically as to become unrecognizable.

 

[etiolate]

That doesn't matter in the slightest. The pragmatic attributes of the product are communicated to the customer clearly and accurately: each toy will allow the child to play as one particular character with a save file unique to that character. It is incredibly presumptuous of you to assume that people not just don't know what they're buying, but that they don't even know what they intend to buy.



When we have a children's games market that's full of "kickass" software instead of E-tier cast-offs this point might be relevant.

Let's just say that I've watched the purchasing process of Skylander in person and if you've seen enough of this then you begin to understand there is a huge disconnect between the kid and the parent, and that the parent is not informed of what the deal going on actually is. Sometimes the parent isn't even in the store. The kid just runs to them for the money and then buys the game.

I don't think the status of kids game quality is relevant to the question of ethics here.

 

[zoukka]

It is only locked to make people pay more for a game. If it can be accessed through a hack then it is there on the product you paid for. The locked content is meant to be played, unlike some left in code a la Hot Coffee mod. This is not something that will stop here. You will end up paying more for less if this practice continues. The disturbing part is sneaking it by through children.

lol the data is on the disc because then it doesn't have to be stored and transferred. I bet you wouldn't be so pissed if the same exact "missing" content would be on some virtual store as a DLC.

And if you think Skylanders is the worst money grab targeted for kids, then you need to visit a toy store sometime now.

 

[Tobor]

It is only locked to make people pay more for a game. If it can be accessed through a hack then it is there on the product you paid for. The locked content is meant to be played, unlike some left in code a la Hot Coffee mod. This is not something that will stop here. You will end up paying more for less if this practice continues. The disturbing part is sneaking it by through children.

Your logic is flawed since the figures have memory and store gameplay info for the player. They aren't just unlock codes, they serve a function. The figures in this case are a peripheral.

They're also an innovative method for allowing cross platform play, which could actually save parents money. No matter what system they own, their kids can play along with their friends.

 

[fernoca]

The concept is this: We can make this kickass gauntlet/diablo for kids with a ton of characters, but why let them play the whole game for just $60 when we can make them pay three times that without their parents understanding what we're doing?

But you can play the entire game with just the starters (3 figures included with the game). The extra figures are for the sake of collection and completion (and addiction too ).

Exploitation if anything would be if you needed to buy more figures to play Chapters 3 to 5, or something. Or that you couldn't access the final chapter if you didn't buy a specific figure (that is not out yet). But in the game, aside extra challenges and hidden areas, the characters don't unlock main content. Heck, in cases to access hidden areas, a person only needs a character from that specific element, so and since the game already includes 3 elements, a person in that case only needs 4 more figures (not all of them). [all would be needed if that person wants to collect and beat every challenge]

Plus as a few has done, they buy the game and portal on eBay and just buy the one of 2 figures they want in the store.

And kids in general are more intelligent than many assume. Hence why Toys R Us were flooded it hkids and their Santa Claus gift cards this past holiday season, and how they looked for specific ones and holded into buying in some cases; if the ones they were looking for weren't available.

*****

Oh And Skylanders OT plug.

 

[Christine]

Let's just say that I've watched the purchasing process of Skylander in person and if you've seen enough of this then you begin to understand there is a huge disconnect between the kid and the parent, and that the parent is not informed of what the deal going on actually is. Sometimes the parent isn't even in the store. The kid just runs to them for the money and then buys the game.

How is that different from any other purchase that the parent leaves totally to the child's discretion? In this case, the kid is the informed consumer. Are you saying she doesn't know that she gets three characters with the game and will have to buy any additional ones separately?

I don't think the status of kids game quality is relevant to the question of ethics here.

At that point you weren't on about ethics, you were on about price. Price is relative to value.